"Oh, well. It's back to baking cookies."
Posted on 02/19/2005 2:15:04 AM PST by Liz
The benefits of expanded GOP control in both chambers of Congress were evident this week with the passage of a major tort-reform measure.
Yesterday, President Bush signed that measure into law. As a result, lawyers seeking to cash in on class-action suits will find it harder to "shop" for favorable local judges. Instead, they'll have to take those cases to federal courts, in a much more fair process.
Bear in mind that this bill lost by a single vote in the Senate last time. This time, it passed 72-26. Their party's losses in the last election plainly inspired several Democrats to vote on common sense, rather than their leaders' wishes.
As for the bill's merits, Bush has rightly noted that the tort system is in bad need of repair. The mess is a drain on the economy, allowing plaintiffs to unfairly target deep-pocketed businesses, which pass on their legal costs to consumers. Frivolous or unfair medical-malpractice suits threaten to drive many doctors and specialists out of business.
The new law targets one of the worst legal abuses: "forum shopping" — taking the case to, say, an obscure town in Mississippi or Texas to greatly boost the odds of getting a too-friendly judge and jury.
Now lawyers can only take a class-action suit to a state court if the main defendant and more than a third of the plaintiffs are from that same state. If not, they must go to the federal courts.
But federal courts would only hear class-action suits involving a minimum of $5 million. And plaintiff lawyers will face some restrictions on their fees.
New York's junior senator, Hillary Clinton (a lawyer herself), sought to do New York — and the nation — a big disservice (and her fellow lawyers a favor) by voting against this sensible measure.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
One more thing.....
Is it really a treat to beat your feet in the Mississippi mud?
Re your list:
Amazingly, Feinstein voted "Yea." It must have been a mistake.
Maybe once a year I get something in my mailbox saying I am in some class-action class for my mortgage, car insurance, whatever; what follows maybe a year after that is the "resolution" of the lawsuit -- the award is a couple of millions of dollars, the "fees" eat 75% of that, and the couple of hundred thousand that's left goes to a couple of hundred thousand members of the class. Typically it's a coupon or something for a dollar.
I don't care what the Dims and NPR want us to believe; probably every US citizen of a moderate or better income has had this experience and knows firsthand what a scam the typical "class action lawsuit" is and what real people get out of it.
Fair enough question, but if I remember my Civic lesson from high school Mullberry was decided by the Supreme Court that when trades crossed state lines, it became an interest to the Federal Goverment.
If a class action suit involves parties across state lines then the Federal Goverment has some interest.
...but as I am not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, I may be wrong.
Of course feingold is on there. grrrrrrr. 6 more years of this moron. Oh, maybe he'll run for president, Run Russ Run!!!!
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Hmmm. Shocked.
Just days into a new session, and the Republicans get a law passed that just a few years ago would never had seen the light of day. And passed with such a strong majority that I can hardly wait to see what else is coming down the road.
This administration has been doing two things, one courting the base of the Democrats, and two, undercutting the "interest" of those special interest groups that give the Democrats millions.
The trial lawyers must be wondering just what did they get for the millions of dollars given to Democrats. As we move into the future, when it come time to donate again, is it possible some of them will decide it is not worth it?
A polictical party out of power has a much harder time convincing people to give them money. The hard core socialist in this country will continue to support the Democrats, but those that provide money with the idea they are going to get something out of it, will hold back.
And I'm the Uncle Fud from the Doc Watson song, so I dunno about the mud thing. (g)
Along with Tom Harkin.
LOL. Yeah, where is the third senator from North Carolina?
Edwards already 'got' his.
Lady Di Fi is going to run for President in 2008. Mark my words.
I feel your anger. Too many people looking for a free lunch.
Thanks for taking the time to post. OUTSTANDING PRESIDENT!
Nice take.........as I posted earlier, the collateral effects of such legislation are always interesting. Businesses savings "billions" from the enactment might also snub the Demonratss and be extra-generous to the Pubbies.
Feingold? Presidential candidate? Nah. More like county dog-catcher.
I'm very glad for this win, but the notion this notion that all costs are passed on to consumers is the Big Lie of the right. (Yes, the left has hundreds of Big Lies, but the right has found one.) Businesses already charge as much as they can; they don't charge more than they do not because they are benevolent, but because they will lose sales.
If Walmart loses a $10 billion lawsuit, they will not raise their prices, because if they do, they know WITH 100% CERTAINTY that their customers will shop elsewhere. The harm is done to stock-holders, including mutual-fund investors and institutional investors like pension firms. But no harm is done to customers.
The potential for harm exists largely when such a lawsuit threatens to push a business over the line from black to red. This is why even corporate income taxes don't cause consumer prices to rise much: The economic function of profit is to spur investment; The tax effects only those corporations already profitable, and can be avoided by diverting money from profit to research and development and acquisition.
(The problem, as we saw in the late '90's, is that there are limits to how much a business *should* spend in these areas. Making business decisions to avoid government action is always harmful. It's better for money to return to individual investors than to turn all profit-making corporations into holding firms, gobbling up all small business and incubating competitors.)
"Oh, well. It's back to baking cookies."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.